attack -- but probably would've happened if they would have provoked an incident on the high seas with the germans that just could not be ignored them under the affair would declare war. that's probably what would have happened because very serious that it could on the high seas. he kept thinking as you're reading the germans are going to declare war over this service out with the congress. the congress was a real problem. ..

suspense because he didn't have to from the eastern front talk to his people, but hitler was not obligated to declare war on us when the japanese attacked. he had no obligation to do that, but he did it. he signed his story that was his biggest mistake because if he hadn't declared war, roosevelt and would have to figure out how

to get the congress to declare war against germany and everybody of course wanted to go to the pacific. >> okay. thank you so much. >> michael gordon recently appeared on c-span washington journal to discuss his book "endgame" about the war in iraq since the occupation in 2003. it's about 40 minutes here on book tv. >> host: it's been just over year since the last troops to iraq to discuss the current status of iraq and look back on the more than eight years of conflict.

we are joined by new york times' national security respondent michael gordon, the author of "the endgame" the inside story of the struggle for iraq from george w. bush to barack obama." mr. borden, start with the title of your book. what was "the endgame" when we left iraq in december of last year? >> guest: yeah, well part of what i wanted to do with my co-author was capture what had happened since the surge -- there'd been a number of books on the search forces in iraq in 2008 and what happened after that. but i was interested in the question what kind of iraq did the united states leave behind after all the sacrifice, the american lives lost, the tens of thousands wounded, the billions of dollars expended. what was american policy toward iraq and what does iraq look like today said it is the question that i sought to address by in the up pretty much covered in the entire scope of the war since a lot of reporting on it. >> host: so a year on our

december 2011 what have we achieved in a year on had we still achieved then? >> guest: well, why the time, by december of 2011, they're had been a number of elections in iraq, which is to the good, but iraq hadn't fully become a democracy in the sense that it hadn't been a peaceful transfer of power from the current regime led by maliki to another pamela starr. i think that is a true test of democracy is whether there isn't an election and russia has elections as i served there there's another candidate wins and power is handed over to that candidate. iraq hasn't set that milestone yet. so, what we had in december of 2011 was a relatively stable iraq, a lot of hopes, but i think unfortunately the situation in iraq was deteriorated politically over the last year and also iraq has been less aligned with american interests in that more aligned with the irony interest in so

far as the search conflict is concerned. >> host: we are taking your calls and questions in this segment, so feel free. the phone lines are open now. republicans, 202-737-0002, democrats, 585-8882. if you served in iraq we want to have your thoughts on what's happening now. phone lines are open. we want to go back to the political situation in iraq talk about finding mr. nouri al-malahim and what his role is in iraq before this started you said that he's not saddam hussein. >> guest: right. he is not saddam hussein in the sense that he was an extremely brutal dictator who killed tens of thousands used chemical weapons against his own population to maintain his hold on power al-maliki isn't like

that although she seems to be a rediker in the making. the political process to go from a lot of the news coverage coming out of iraq the news media has physically abandoned iraq. "the new york times" is a bureau there but it's one of the few. he's been cracking down on a lot of his political opponents and just a week or so ago he did something that in our system would be extraordinary. security officials from the ministry of interior be tamed the security detail of the finance minister of the al-maliki government, rauf isle, because he is a sunni and al-maliki is a shiite and he's a member of the opposition political party and just even now -- >> host: we are showing the viewers a story here, tensions rise in baghdad with the raid on an official. >> guest: and it's gotten worse since then. i'm in touch with the iraqis. what you have is demonstrations and a lot of our province and if

fallujah and ramadi. estimates are 50 to 100,000 people demonstrating all through the weekend, and they also cut the highway from iraq to jordan. so you have a very polarized and fraught political saturation. unfortunately the american influence in iraq is in some way attenuated at this point. >> host: is this a country drifting back towards dictatorship? , >> guest: is a countries whose future is uncertain, and certainly it could become -- and already is a bit off the path of democracy in my assessment, but the battle really isn't lost. the american government -- the obama administration is trying to do what it can to stabilize things, but it lost a lot of influence with the departure of american forces. one thing that the american forces did get in the united states is more clout inside of iraq. >> host: talk about the release of a man accused of killing american soldiers.

this issue that you write about in your book, "the endgame," but also some news that came out in november about the release of ali. >> guest: there's been a number of events that i think have worked against the american interest in iraq. that duke is one of them. she is an iraqi come he is a lebanese who was sent into iraq at the behest of the american courts because hezbollah is supported by iran. for the purposes of training of the shiite militia who were fighting the american troops, and he was captured along with a number of the shiite militia leaders in the rate connected in basra by the brits in which there's an american presence held in detention by the united states. but then under the status of forces agreement he was handed over to the iraqis. >> host: this agreement we

were not even able to extend. >> guest: with the obama administration hoped is that he would either be extradited to the united states for some sort of trial by military tribunals. they requested extradition. he would at least be detained further in iraq. but maliki was under pressure from the united states to keep him and by the iranians to release him. so what he did it sold them through the american election, which he thought was a favor to the obama administration even though they didn't ask for that, and then he released him. so it's one of a number of steps that is taken, which cuts against american interest. >> host: shares some stats on the iraq war by the numbers. u.s. troops killed 4,482. u.s. troops wounded, 32,000 to enter 13. estimated cost, this from abc news, $704.6 billion. after all that, with those numbers, people will ask why was

in the u.s. able to influence iraqi enough to extradite him back to the u.s.? even after all we spent, we can't get him back? >> guest: that's not the only problem. iran has been flying arms to the al-assad regime and syria through the iraqi airspace. we've been trying to get the iraqis to insist the iranian planes land from inspection. they've only done to inspections and one was a plane returning empty from damascus. so it is a good question. and i think the answer is a complicated one, but i would say two things: one, in any country that is a newly emerging country, newly, you know, government, there is a sense of nationalism, that you have to contend with which is legitimate. the united states doesn't own iraq. they have their own government, their own leaders. we can't dictate to them what to do, and there are a lot of states in the region that are trying to meddle in iraq. the iranians big time, turkey, the gulf states are all trying to exert influence inside iraq.

but also i think a big part of the answer is in really what happened to the united states. the american government is conflicted on iraq. the obama administration itself was ambivalent about whether we should keep forces in iraq beyond 2011 or not. in fact, president obama campaign on the tenant that he had extricated forces from iraq completely. the planned -- the military hoped to keep me five to ten to 15,000 there including al qaeda. so, you know when the american government itself doesn't see iraq as a priority, and it doesn't at this point in time, then i think that also would see influence that we can have inside the country. >> host: again, we are taking your calls on the subject. the war in iraq and was happening in iraq now. we are with michael gordon of the new york times. phone lines are open. we will go to mohammed from new

york, new york on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is looking back to the news, as michael feel any sense of responsibility to live up to the iraq war does he owe an apology to the families that got killed on iraq? >> guest: you are referring to the wmd coverage of the issue of weapons of mass destruction. in "the new york times" part of the war since you're familiar with that you are aware that he reported the cia assessment that iraq was trying to acquire material but also should be aware that i also reported the iaea assessment that this was not the case and the state department assessment bureau of intelligence and research, but

this was not the case, so i recorded both sides of the debate before the war command. >> host: how "the endgame" strategy sort of changed over the course of the war and iraq. >> guest: welcome the american intelligence on wmd was wrong. the cia intelligence was wrong. there was no american -- it wasn't always wrong in the bush administration, it was wrong towards the end of the clinton administration because they thought iraq was rebuilding their weapons of mass destruction arsenal. there was no american agencies that did not think that iraq had chemical weapons. it was a debate as to whether they were pursuing nuclear weapons. but the intelligence assessment, which has been declassified, the readers can go look at it from themselves, and it is one of the big intellectual failures. but a lot of the american leadership at the time to

include current secretary of state clinton, john kerry, blight and, pretty much voted for the war on the basis of this faulty intelligence. >> host: on twitter the bottom line is iraq a more stable -- is iraq more stable now than before we invaded? is the government less the president is it less of a threat in the region? >> guest: the government is less oppressive sense it's hard to imagine a government that can be more oppressive than saddam hussein. i mean, you are talking about a man that killed tens of thousands of people and used chemical weapons against the kurds in a town and who started a war with iran that killed hundreds of thousands and invaded kuwait which led to the first american war the desert storm led in by general schwarzkopf who passed away. succumbing yes, iraq is at this point in time less of a threat to its own people, much less of a threat to the region, not for the stable, and not yet a mature

democracy. >> host: a couple comments on the war in iraq photo rights and iraq veteran coming in iraq of utter income current situation was predictable, and not impose western values on middle eastern country. one other man, iraq was a gift for halliburton and the rest of the bush contractor cronies. if you want to take either one of those. >> guest: well, the iraqis have representative government of a sort and the question is whether if it's going to be a fully space one or not. and they have a parliament, they have elections. the elections by the way were deemed in terms of the counting of the votes to have been fair by the observers who salles them, so i think it is a little chauvinist to say that people in the middle east are not capable of building a democracy. that's exactly what's going on now in place is like egypt and

other places. they may not get their but a lot of people are trying and there are a lot of iraqis -- they are shia, sunni, kurds, is a multi-ethnic and multi sectarian societies alike question people about generalizing broadly about iraq. i mean, there are iraqis who do want to have a connection with the united states and do want iraq to become more space but they are involved in a political struggle to that end. >> host: let's go to mike now from massachusetts on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. question for the gentleman. i'm a veteran as well as iraqi veteran. i was in the first iraqi conflict and i agree with a lot of what he has to say except the

weapons of mass destruction. general schwarzkopf when the wind in their in their early nineties we had intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction being moved to the syrian border and some to be a iranian border and a lot of my sisters and brothers who served in that war stabenow the sunnis of iraq siding with iran in damascus and what is happening there and i see the same thing happening all over again that in a different geographical era, and it's basically from my intelligence, i see the political hedging against the

military side and i know for a fact irregardless of the marine that went over there and did the investigation. >> host: mr. gordon? >> guest: the call has a good point, the reason the issue of weapons of mass destruction is so complicated is that he had weapons of mass destruction. there's no doubt about it he used them against the kurds and he had them at the time of the desert storm campaign that the clerk participated in, he had missiles that he fired. i was also over there when he fired them at saudi arabia and israel he had biological weapons, and at one point he had the makings of a nuclear weapon acquired its of the gulf war. he was a man that had a fairly substantial wmd arsenal much like the shaara al-assad has in

syria today. and that task after the first gulf war was to dismantle the arsenal, and a part of what led to the debate over the wmd for the second iraq war was a lot of people in the united nations and in the american government were not satisfied that the weapons that he did have had been fully eradicate it, and was hard to prove, but we now know that by the time the 2003 occasion occurred this had deteriorated into nothing more had been removed and that isn't understood that time in part because for a period of news and inspections iraq. >> host: how many times did you go over to iraq? >> guest: i'm not sure that i can remember exactly, but i covered the first 1991 war

called the general war and then i was there for the invasion in 2003 and actually got to baghdad on april 12th and the place was in chaos but in a funny way it's never been quite as safe as it was a nurse first few weeks because it was stunned into the insurgency hadn't yet gotten its act together. and then i stayed true that through the summer and i wrote a book about the invasion and a different book and then i came back and let's see, in the summer of 06, i spent that on places in the man in baghdad before the surge and then after the surge by pri dissipated and most of the search operations in the province and there was a big fight in sadr city could spend a

substantial amount of time in, so i feel like i have seen at the beginning of a surge, during the surge in afterwards and my most recent trip back had promised to maliki and all of the others didn't give me a lot of time. >> host: the author of "the endgame" the struggle for iraq from george w. bush to barack obama. also reporting on the war zones afghanistan, kosovo, chechnya and a panel was based in moscow for four years during putin's ascent to power. we will go now to rahm from steubenville ohio on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen i'm just curious, do you feel that the united states and the west as a whole has a misunderstanding of history and a sense of history as far as people conflict and the tribal

conflict in that region? second, is there any attempt to point out to the muslim tribes and nations that we did go into bosnia to defend muslims? >> host: mr. gordon? >> caller: the caller makes a number of interesting points. one, you know there is -- i mean i'm a journalist. i'm not an advocate for the american government. but there is a criticism that the united states by these military operations and these different countries somehow press muslims. but if you look at the record in the bosnian conflict in the 90's, basically the united states led a nato intervention to protect the muslims against serbian aggression which came to the floor. then in afghanistan one could argue that the tightening of the

taliban in 2001 and i was there for that, too was a benefit for the deaf can people and the women in that society didn't like the rule with the medieval cold and them in terms of iraq's, you know, the united states did overthrow of dictator lady it's a misreading of intelligence and wmd but allowed them to exercise -- they had to be a part of the government in a way they had not been otherwise. they were talking about a conflict that started in 2003, and we still have the largest but it's an understanding among the american experts that the differences between sunni and

shia i don't think that's the issue but i do think that one thing that works against the united states there is very often a short-term mentality to a long-term problem and a place like iraq isn't going to change in one or two years simply because we have an election cycle or if become impatient or decided to focus on something else. if you want to maintain influence and i believe it is in their interest to have influenced their you have to look at it as a long-term position. host could you talk about a large number of americans that have been in iraq. about 1.5 million american military personnel that served in in a round iraq from 2003 to about 2011. a question, mr. gordon, from atwitter. we never hear reports about oeo in iraq. i wonder how the chinese will

contractors are doing. take us to today and that issue. >> guest: well i'm not an expert on the chinese oil contractors. however, iraq is a major oil producer, and it's now outstripping the iranians interestingly enough because of their nuclear program and that isn't exactly to the interest of the iranians so it isn't the case that everything by the way that the iraqis to is for the benefit of the iranians. a lot of times it is for their own self-interest. so it has a large oil reserves, they are now outstripping the iranians. >> host: are the expected to continue to grow? >> guest: they are growing. >> host: >> guest: the need a lot of improvements because the infrastructure when i first got there in 2003 and i went around

some of the military in the fields and first we thought the infrastructure had been sabotaged but later it became clear it was just antiquated old and decrepit so it takes some investment, but there is a lot of tension with iraq between the kurds who have their own substantial resources and dominant bear population to divvy up the proceeds, and that's become a problem in returning the development of some of the energy production. also it's another factor that makes the system it volatile. >> host: do you think the u.s. every experience is directly related to the u.s. hesitation on syria? are we finished policing the world?

>> guest: it's a good question and i think the syrian situation is a very different one from the iraq situation. really syria and it's stunningly reminds me of the balkans from the 90's. there is an internal conflict which is really horrendous. more than 40 or 50,000 syrians have died in it. i think where it is different in this respect nobody, not even the syrians want the united states to invade on the ground and take over syria and administer it. that isn't the issue in the case of syria. the issue in the case of syria is whether the united states should supply weapons to factions that are fighting the regime that are aligned with our interests or not and if we don't do this point the more extreme elements in the region support for radical islamic rebels who

are fighting and our state is that we want people to prevail who are closer to our interests and the people closer to the muslim interest and yet we are not supporting them materially and i think there are reports from syria that say there is a fair amount of resentment. one fact i would like to point out as al qaeda in iraq, which is initially at of al qaeda central and was a big threat in iraq is now heavily involved in the syrian conflict under the moniker on this front. and one reason it is able to do that is that we took all of our forces out of iraq and 2011. if we had just several thousand forces working with the iraqi special operations forces, i believe we could have attenuated the growth of al qaeda and iraq and its influence and syria so this is another who consequence of the removal and all of the american forces at the end of

2011. >> host: you've offered more insight into the connection as you call it. the general david petraeus at time to consult to visit damascus. talk a little bit about that. >> guest: in the book iss general petraeus and his predecessor general casey and those that followed him and got access notte through petraeus certainly but some of the communications sent back to the pentagon, his sort of weekly letters, and i've come to the conclusion general petraeus did a very good job and the surge he oversaw work to militarily didn't work foley politically for a variety of reasons. but one thing petraeus understood is that the al qaeda that volunteers who were coming to join al qaeda in iraq were

coming from the damascus airport crossing the border going into iraq and the syrian intelligence knew this. they pretended that they didn't, but they did and what he wanted to do is go fly to damascus with stanley the crystal and right in the special operations activities in iraq and confront him and say look we know what's going on. this is kind to come back and haunt you one day because these people who came in three or country are going to be going out the same day and one day they will have their sights on you. so you might be in your own interests to stop the flow of the foreign fighters as they call them that there was a debate within the bush administration and at the time they tried to isolate syria online, petraeus was never allowed to make the trip. >> host: and he is facing some of the same fighters in his country? >> guest: yes and if some of

what were to happen in any event but yes it would sort of the public justice if it were not for the possibility these people might not in that position which would be against our interests but guess some of the same people he let in to fight in iraq are now flooding into syria to fight temps. >> host: let's go to carleen from california on the republican line. good morning. thanks for waiting. >> caller: good morning. i first time call but i wanted to mention that just yesterday on c-span2 i was watching a lady author, her name was gilbert. she wrote a book about saturday people in the sunday people and she said that in iraq there blogging at christian churches daily coming in on christmas of a blow up a church but before that they be headed a lot of people and the jews and the arabs are still in a terrible, terrible war and there is no

place for them to go. i am just so concerned, but i appreciate c-span so much. this is the first time that i've ever been able to call and i just wondered if the times had heard about that, and i'd like to see them report these kind of things in the times. >> host: mr. gordon? >> guest: i think that the call has raised a good point. we have reported some of these things. first of all there is nothing to speak of an iraq. a lot of them are from years ago in and out of the country well before, you know, any of the american war there and one of my colleagues, "new york times" colleagues actually found life and one of the few remaining jews in baghdad and he wrote a story about it, but the man was so petrified that about being found out that it was all worked

through a series of a think intermediaries and the had to interview him in a very indirect way because that's the point that there. as far as christians are concerned, the call is right that there have been persecutions and not by the government, but you know, there's a lot of fashion's there. al qaeda is there and particularly in the northern parts of iraq in the province in and around the mosul area there are sort of pockets of christians or sort of hanging in there so, you know, that's definitely a problem that the united states and international community needs to be aware of. >> host: in terms of the amount of turmoil what would you compare it to what we saw those eight years when we were there?

>> guest: its many times better than it was prior to the surge for the level of violence is just astronomical, and there would be huge bells going off on a very regular basis killing large numbers of people because with al qaeda it's trying to stimulate their plan was to create a civil war with an iraq which they almost succeeded in doing between the sunni and shia and they think the balance would engulf the government and would fall apart and fill the vacuum, so it's much, much better than that. i went to places with rather minimal security and there were killed in iraq in 2012, so by our standards the level of violence is still rather high.

>> host: a report today from the associated press the iraqi sunni protesters wounded by gunfire, gunshots wounded at least two people sunday at the demonstrations in western iraq when bodyguards protecting a senior sunni politician opened fire to disperse protestors the local official said marking the first casualties in the wink of rallies the tensions in iraq which is struggling to maintain stability nearly a decade after the u.s.-led invasion toppled saddam hussein's's sunni dominated regime and the year after the last u.s. troops withdrew. these reports were seen still on a daily basis? >> guest: against his own finance minister of rafael, and he is from elan bar and there of the massive demonstrations with tens of thousands of people protesting this. so, it is this crisis that

basically maliki has the power to resolve if he's so inclined what he is trying to weaken his opposition for some elections coming up in the spring. maliki's style was to try to -- he, you know, there is another official who's taken refuge in turkey. so this is part of the instability in iraq today. and the american government, the american ambassador has been involved in trying to tamp down and contain and walk down some of these steps but so far hasn't been successful. >> host: does president obama and maliki talk? >> guest: rarely come and what president obama basically delegated the iraq file to vice president joe biden, and vice president biden -- >> host: when did that happen? >> guest: it happened in 2009.

very early -- well, maybe even, well yeah, 2009 in the first part. so, he had the lead for the iraq policy. and a lot of this is reflected in my book. but there was a debate about how much to get involved behind maliki, and the investor at the time, ambassador chris hill pretty much thought that maliki was the man we had to work with and that his rival didn't really have a good chance of making it to the prime minister post not withstanding the fact that his party won more seats than maliki's party but there was a debate in the government where vice president joe biden came down and was in favor of working with maliki as there would be a necessary evil or just the man that was going to be there. so, when things really get hot or when there is a crisis, vice president wyden calls and he called the iranian flights to syria. he called about the release.

but it just seems that his call seems to have less and less influence this time it's gone wrong. >> host: let's go to lincoln from indianapolis indian on the republican line. good morning, lincoln. >> caller: good morning. i have a comment and question. i, being the person in conflict with people around the world i have a few friends with egypt and kuwait, my friend in kuwait goes to one of the blind schools over there. is there a possibility that iraq might actually reconveyed any time soon? >> guest: no. >> host: what are the current relationships between iraq and kuwait? >> guest: i anderson and the question because there are still issues between iraq and kuwait, but the military lacks the

capacity to do anything like that at this point in time to read the can do some -- that is one reason is for the armenians to fly through their sharon treat. we took our air force out on our flight. iraq's it was in operation 2008 in basra that maliki commanded the name of the charge and a nice, and basically if the united states military hadn't provided a whole lot of enablers like the garre support logistics advisers, intelligence and what not, she probably would have failed. so i also don't think that maliki has any particular reason to focus on kuwait. maliki's big concern at this point in time is syria. he is worried that the fall of

al-assad weld engoulvent sunnis within syria and kurds within syria and that the coalition of the forces will turn against him. >> host: let's go to thomas now from florida on the independent line. good morning, thomas. >> caller: good morning from sentinelle island florida but that's all right. question for you mr. gordon. president bush initially promised that the iraqi oil would eventually pay back the united states for the conduct of the war of liberation for iraq and that has never happened yet no one speaks of it in the media or the government. furthermore it is mike understanding that no american company has a role in the

rehabilitation and the oil field with a sharing of the profits for devotee you have any comment about that? >> guest: well, i don't recall president bush in in the understanding with iraq and would compensate the united states for the war in this current political climate that's not going to happen. i'm not an expert on the area, however, there are multinational companies in iraq, exxonmobil made a deal and it is part of iraq, to explore chemical warfield's their. it's just i think that iraq's investment climate and the reason these companies don't go in is not because they are being discriminated against. it's because the investment climate, the kind of legal architecture that you need to get people to put serious money

into the kind of a developing country is and always there. so there's been a bit of a movement from some concerns from southern iraq or the kurdish part of iraq exacerbated tensions between the kurds and arabs. rezko the author of iranians to discuss the seven from iraq from george w. bush to barack obama. you can also check out the web site at michaelgordon.com. thank you for joining us today. >> guest: thank you. i thought questions were very good and deserving the best answers i could provide.

>> i did just write to this new book the fraga folk interchange, and i did it because i miss talking to katherine lopez online is it meant to be an awakening, something like that? and i said you bet it is. it stuns me that have of the american population completely fell for this employee mantra of hope and change that obama administration was going to be a

transcendent administration that brought us all together. that is why barack obama burned the white house because he said he was going to be the great uniter. remember that great inaugural address, it was glorious, where he said to conservatives especially when we disagree, nice, beautiful, beautiful idea he was going to meet with conservatives in congress once a week. there was a great idea, too. he met twice, two times. so, three days after that beautiful speech, the conservatives in congress came to congress and had a meeting and eric cantor came from virginia and articulated the perspective on increasing taxes but we shouldn't do that. you know what obama said three days after especially when we disagree? he said eric, i1 coming you lost. then about a week later he says i want the folks that got us into this mess to do the whole

lot less talking and a lot more listening. you know, you can talk of little bit but i want you on the sidelines while we try to clean this up for you. unbelievable. gone with any notion of unifying the country, of bringing us together. instead, they're came this steady mantra of the attack and vilify the other side. no ideas. it wasn't an idea base. just like his 2008 campaign for president wasn't idea based. was hope and change, glorious pieces with no substance whatsoever to the only substance is he was going to unify us committee the post partisan president. and yet almost immediately, it was conservatives are hostage-takers. they are the enemy. they care only about millionaires and billionaires and not children with autism and down syndrome. now, what was this approach? why did obama and his

administration come in wanting to verify the oversight just because intense hatred? it was bringing to the administration that philosophy of a community organizer. you know, for years obama said i'm still a community organizer, just at the national level. well, this was the one qualification that i think obama brought to the administration if you can even call it , liquification. he was a community organizer. he was a darn good one. absolutely. he was known by his fellow community organizers as the masters of agitation. this is important because this is the essence of how he views the world. obama bucha into a community, and he would identify an enemy for that group, for that community and she would stoke their animosity, fuel let and really generate this thanks to come anger and even hatred to get and while everybody is all riled up hating some

organization or person or whatever he focuses their attention on, she ran through his agenda. no discussion, no need for any debate or discourse, that was all based on distract everybody, get them focused on some entity and then ran through whenever he wanted. that is exactly what he has done at the national level. for the past four years, they're has been no philosophical back-and-forth. no dynamic free and open exchange of ideas. i wrote this book called divider in chief not because i am attacking division in politics. i am all for it. anybody that which is fox news, msnbc, i love it when it is based on ideas. that is the essential premise of the country that we are free to have that dynamic and vigorous exchange. our founding fathers were not sitting around singing. the were duking it out with a very different philosophy. and because they were able to

have this mutual respect and have this -- and it wasn't always respect that they were able to fight it out based on ideas and philosophy, we now live in the greatest most prosperous nation on the face of the earth because their ideas -- the best ideas were able to triumph because reason was able to combat ideas that were not that great but that is what is happening now. we are losing the ability for the reason to be free, to combat bad ideas. do you ever hear the obama administration defending why it works to raise taxes on small businesses or on individuals who are successful? do you ever hear them say from an economic standpoint this is how we will generate more income and sustain it? no, because for one that will only generate less income. but it is indefensible. so, instead of actually trying to articulate a defense of their economic policies, they rip us

apart. they divide us. they start of of of fighting conservatives as heating poor people and the middle class. this whole class warfare thing, by the way, ripping apart based on economics that this? i was sitting their watching obama give a speech theatre de -- of it was a couple months ago. he said 12 times the middle class in this speech. what is pigeonholing us into the middle class? and he loves to say i want to help you, you americans, you little people was what he means, you people get into the middle class and stay there. okay. first of all, why is it the president of the united states' responsibility to decide what class i should be in? i should have dreams to achieve whatever level of income and a great mess that i want to. and this country provides me the opportunity, played by the

rules, or car, have heads the and you can achieve greatness that this president instead tears us apart to succeed. they mean taking the few. that is an amazing thing. to condemn those that have achieved success, we honor success in this culture but he vilifies it so that we can grant through the notion with higher taxes that is his justification. there is something wrong with these people, they've got their gains so we must punish them. no economic rationale. and then you have conservatives arguing since we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and the rationale for why that works. live from an economic standpoint that produces more prosperity. what works under ronald reagan,

how jack kennedy did it and have it worked. but you don't hear the same argument coming from this administration. they also can't come forward and have an honest discussion about what their objectives are. the increasing prosperity by unleashing the private sector overbearing, not reasonable but overbearing government regulations. we believe there is an unlimited ability for prosperity. the left believes it is a fixed amount. and everybody gets a slice of it. but you don't hear of a left articulating a response to that discussion because what obama wants to do is force the redistribution. and if honest about that, honest

about his goals of not equalizing everyone but bringing them down and that is what happens when you try to equalize and come if he were to be honest about that and give a philosophical defense the american people would reject it resoundingly. so, instead, he tries to turn conservatives into the enemy. and let me tell you, it is incredibly effective when it's not met with powerful, courageous, profound articulation of our ideas. and we have seen that when there is a vacuum on our side that hate filled rhetoric ran through since we are a clear but policy institute, i want to talk particularly about this whole notion of the war on women. obama just hasn't kept his defensive rhetoric to the war against women, it's been deciding young people, turning

young people against all people, turning old people against businesses and corporations, dividing es based on our faith and of course based on race. this was supposed to be a post racial presidency come and get racial tensions are high year than ever, perhaps in this country in terms of trusting when another and thinking the best of one another. he has divided us based on immigration, saying that conservatives are the enemy because we have a different philosophy on granting amnesty and that sort of thing. but the war against women is probably the most stark example of how she has tried to put americans against one another. now, i will say i think there probably is a war against women happening here but it's not coming from the conservative side. it's a shame that we are using words like war against women but i will get to that in a minute.

the reality is that this ad administration used that health and human services mandate not to have a discussion of religious liberty and what religious organization should be compelled to do but instead to use it as an opportunity to say we told you conservatives hate women. they want to take them back to the stone ages and deprive of their reproductive justice because conservatives do not believe that religious organizations should become compelled to provide an insurance program that covers something as into the call to their beliefs. so, because of that very rational explanation, conservatives despise women. they are engaged in an assault. this is the kind of language that the use. conservatives are involved in an assault. we are waging a war against women. women's health needs are increasingly under attack by conservatives. that's what they say. the language is pretty serious

stuff, but my favorite i have to give you my fifth example of a warmup on women mantra coming from the left as congresswoman sheila jackson lee. she always has good stuff, but sheila jackson lee, talking about this conservative, get it? we are attacking women because we hate women. our assault on women, sheila jackson lee said, quote, i think the next act by conservatives will be dragging women out of patient rooms into the streets and screaming over their body as they get dragged out of getting access to women's health care. seriously. okay, seriously? that's what we are going to do? it's unbelievable. there is no fact, nothing to back up such a profoundly misleading statement that only is put out to incite hatred and mistrust to read and mistrust of our intentions, our goodness so that when any issue comes up in

congress or in the public discourse, the statements like this and statements the president has said, our administration has said will malae objections from conservatives on any issue particularly on issues relating to anything related to women, which of course for the left by the way runs the gamut between a and b, abortion and birth control. that's all we need to care about according to them. but it absolutely silences -- is intended to silence our side and sometimes it's pretty effective. particularly among conservative men they look at this like i guess i can't talk about issues related to women. you know what? am i ghosh absolutely they have to talk about issues related to women because the laws effective freedom. women are concerned about the same thing and then men are concerned about. but let's look at what the left is saying about women. let's look at how open-minded the left is. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org.

..